Why are property prices so different in the north?

lisyloo

GreatApe wrote: »

You moved people out by the housing benefit cap

And over the decade have 300,000 fewer homes that fall under that cap since they are charging £15,000 rent per year rather than £5,000 per year

You also have a company paying the government £3 billion a year which is used to give every labor votre a pomchi or two and you can spray paint them in the colors of the rainbow for added cuteness.

Sorry I genuinely don’t get it.
You started off saying you wanted to reduce house prices.
How did you acheive that?

You say there is less congestion as you’ve moved 500,000 people in, but if you want to charge rent on these flats you will have to move 500,000 people in.

??????

lisyloo

GreatApe wrote: »

Another idea I read about a long time ago but it seems not to have gone anywhere but it was interesting was the idea of building the equivalent of cruise ships and docking them permanently onto areas in the Thames. 2,500 rooms per ship with communal kitchens/laundry etc. A bit like student dorms.

Maybe not ideal for families but would be fine for young workers and you would be right in zone 1

100 such ships could house 375,000 people at an mix of 1 and 2 persons per room

Like with most things, if they were filled with full time workers they would work fine but if filled with the idle would end up as undesirable tower blocks

Maybe more realistic as an 'office' space for 5,000 workers...

I’m really not sure where you think you can put 100 ships in zone 1.

Mooring spaces are in high demand and the infrastructure you’d need e.g. plumbing would be an expense.

This is why most people just choose to live further out e.g. zone 4 and commute in, or if they can work from home a few days a week then even Birmingham is commutable.
Luton and Kent are 1 hour.
This is what most people, do especially if they have a family.

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

Sorry I genuinely don’t get it.
You started off saying you wanted to reduce house prices.
How did you acheive that?

You say there is less congestion as you’ve moved 500,000 people in, but if you want to charge rent on these flats you will have to move 500,000 people in.

??????

Lets take the extreme and pretend we sell off all the social housing stock to a private company, which the government owns 100% of and this company charges £10,000 more than social rents. The exact figure is what the market rents are so it is x above social rents but for argument sake we are assuming for this debate x is £10,000 it might be more or less than that

There are some 850,000 social homes in london so said company makes a profit of £8.5 billion which goes to the pomchi government fund

Ok so we sold off the social homes and kicked out the tenants, the tenants cant find anywhere to live in London because of the £900 a month (or whatever) housing benefit cap. They leave London to go live in rUK and rUK can absorb them because rUK is almost 8x the size of London

Or rather lets say half the tenants cant afford London the other half can afford to continue renting in London (eg like that trade union guy on £150k wage who lived in a council flat paying £80 quid a week rent)

So you have moved 425,000 households out of London about 1 million people

What happens is the rest of London now lives less dense.
So instead of
9 million people in 3.5 million homes we have
8 million people in 3.5 million homes
Decrease in density of 11%
The result is lower house prices and lower rents lets say for arguments sake 20% lower

rUK goes from
58 million people in 26 million homes to
59 million people in 26 million homes
Increase in density of less than 2% so not a huge difference in prices and rents
Lets say prices and rents go up 3% for arguments sake

Differential of London vs rUK rents and prices falls


Now my proposal is less extreme and done over 10 years rather than instantly
Sell off 300,000 of the council homes to a private company (or to the public)
This will result in a lower than otherwhise London population
The difference in the population would be internal migration from London to rUK

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

I’m really not sure where you think you can put 100 ships in zone 1.

Mooring spaces are in high demand and the infrastructure you’d need e.g. plumbing would be an expense.

They dont take all that much space and seeing as cruise ships exist and work im sure these can exist and work but it depends on cost. If 2,500 rooms rental price can be high enough to pay for a limited lifespan ship its maintenance depreciation and upkeep

This is why most people just choose to live further out e.g. zone 4 and commute in, or if they can work from home a few days a week then even Birmingham is commutable.
Luton and Kent are 1 hour.
This is what most people, do especially if they have a family.

They should instead be given the social housing to rent or buy and the non working social tenants be shipped to those areas you mention

lisyloo

What happens is the rest of London now lives less dense.

I don’t agree with this premise on which your idea is based and believe me that no one in London who’s renting (unless they are rich) lives less dense as space is at a massive premium.

I live in a private flat in a social housing block and we are no less dense than the social housing tenants.

Believe me due to the cost we are as dense as is possible in central London.

lisyloo

GreatApe wrote: »

They should instead be given the social housing to rent or buy and the non working social tenants be shipped to those areas you mention

I don’t have an issue with long term unemployed being moved out of central London in favour of people working for a living.
However I’m under no illusion that there is nowhere near enough housing for everyone that wants to live here hence demand will stay high keeping prices high at the max the market can withstand.

lisyloo

GreatApe wrote: »

Differential of London vs rUK rents and prices falls

This will result in a lower than otherwhise London population

It just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny I’m afraid.
There is massive demand for London, so as soon as rents fell, people desperate not to commute would move further in (partial funded by the fall in their commuting costs) and would increase density and prices.

It’s the massive demand that keeps prices high.
Whatever you do prices will remain at the max the market can withstand.

getmore4less

GreatApe wrote: »

Another idea I read about a long time ago but it seems not to have gone anywhere but it was interesting was the idea of building the equivalent of cruise ships and docking them permanently onto areas in the Thames. 2,500 rooms per ship with communal kitchens/laundry etc. A bit like student dorms.

Maybe not ideal for families but would be fine for young workers and you would be right in zone 1

100 such ships could house 375,000 people at an mix of 1 and 2 persons per room

Like with most things, if they were filled with full time workers they would work fine but if filled with the idle would end up as undesirable tower blocks

Maybe more realistic as an 'office' space for 5,000 workers...

I suspect you have never been on a cruise ship.

Even cut back on luxury itens ships that size will cost 1/2billion.
The rooms are tiny, loads have no windows
Running cost are enormous even connected to land based supply and wast facilities.

You can't get them past the thames barrier.

Cakeguts

This is what I know. When the BBC moved to Salford Quays there were a proportion of the work force who refused to move. Some of those that did had never been north of Watford never mind the motorway service station with the gap. Those moving were shown areas around Manchester that they might consider moving to and many were surprised at the beautiful countryside and the lovely little cottages in little villages round Manchester. I think some of the them assumed that the only part of the country worth living in was somewhere near London.



The problem with London is that there are a lot of people who try to live there because the salaries offered pay more than they can get elsewhere so they see the salary levels but they don't think about the costs. I suspect that there are a lot of "graduates" from universities that used to be technical colleges who are not bright enough to realise that you need to earn a lot more to be able to afford to live in London. £25k in some parts of the country is a good salary. In London it isn't. People are not careful enough in checking why a job is available in London it could be because no one living in London can afford to take it.

chelseablue

Cakeguts wrote: »

This is what I know. When the BBC moved to Salford Quays there were a proportion of the work force who refused to move. Some of those that did had never been north of Watford never mind the motorway service station with the gap. Those moving were shown areas around Manchester that they might consider moving to and many were surprised at the beautiful countryside and the lovely little cottages in little villages round Manchester. I think some of the them assumed that the only part of the country worth living in was somewhere near London.



The problem with London is that there are a lot of people who try to live there because the salaries offered pay more than they can get elsewhere so they see the salary levels but they don't think about the costs. I suspect that there are a lot of "graduates" from universities that used to be technical colleges who are not bright enough to realise that you need to earn a lot more to be able to afford to live in London. £25k in some parts of the country is a good salary. In London it isn't. People are not careful enough in checking why a job is available in London it could be because no one living in London can afford to take it.

Very true!

If we both earned 25k in London we would struggle massively and wouldn't be able to buy anything

If we both earned 25k in the North West we'd be quite comfortable (especially taking into account selling our house in Berkshire)